Bishop Hill The infamy of John Cook
Feb 4, 2014 Climate: WG3 Greens Mike Hulme is going to find himself given "the big cutoff" if he carries on like this.
The now infamous paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer-reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the fact that humans cause climate change is largely irrelevant to the more important business of deciding what to do about it. By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point.
"Infamous" eh? Perhaps word is getting round that John Cook and his acolytes at Skeptical Science are a bit of a liability. With quote fabrication now added to the list of misdeeds of which he stands accused, and with nobody at Sks even offering up a defence, it is going to be hard for anyone who seeks credibility to stand by the treehouse crew.
Reader Comments (39)
Remember all there is still a challenge to find anything ever written by Nutticelli that would be against the interests not just of Tetra Tech, but even of Tetra Tech Construction, Inc, the TT subsidiary that I suspect actually pays his salary.
TTC is big in all kind of non-oil non-coal energy, and especially in wind energy, where it has installed 20GW so far in the USA and Canada.
TTC is on record opposing fracking, of course, as it would eat away the need for wind farms.
I surmised that SkS supported so far all non-oil non-coal non-fracking energy projects. I still have to find evidence of the contrary. An article about the dangers of wind farms will suffice.
Hey guys. I wanted to let you know there were some updates since I wrote that post (mostly covered in the comments), and I've written a quick post discussing them. You can easily skip it if you'd like, but you should at least read this highlight:
I think 'infamous' is quite a mild criticism of what is a shoddy and shocking contrivance of a paper. But I note he is also pushing the 'never mind the science, what about the policy' line. Is this the new sizzle to be sold? And is it because they think they have lost on the science front, or that they have won, or that they have not got a snowflake's chance in a cagw inferno of winning on it? I think the middle of these is what they will claim despite the other two being far more compelling.
I think the article shows establishment science ‘allowing’ sceptics at the policy table..
SkS, collective bucket of alarmist effluvia, all pseud science, fabrication and elliptical argument - epitomized by the recondite meanderings of Entropic man.
One also has to be careful to read too much into the emanations of Hulme, trying to interpret his words, is like attempting to decipher Sumerian cuneiform blindfold. Other than feathering his own nest, the man speaks in riddles and it is hard to define his real motives but having a go at Cook et al is permitted by il tutti mondiale and nobodies - like Mike Hulme.
Apropos of climate 'whoring'.
Horny or, prurient eco campaigners - there is no need of free servicing - the taxpayers of the western world though they are unaware of it - pay off the balance on the UN platinum cards. Pay the fees of the 'delegates' who deem themselves in need of relaxation therapy and massage - isn't that how the UN [IPCC] works?
Some people have zero self-awareness.
“"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the fact that humans cause climate change is largely irrelevant to the more important business of deciding what to do about it.""
I'm with the 97.1%. Always have been. So what? The science needs to show where and how climate change will be dangerous vs advantageous. Many scientific questions need to be answered before we have the luxury of knowing what, if anything, needs to be done where. The evidence looks more and more that climate sensitivity is at the low end or predictions. Recent extremes show that the track of the jetstream and polar vortex have far more adverse affect in weather events than anything long term predictable.
The tools for prediction are constantly being shown to be wrong, I'm sure partly because the basic science and parametrizations are not properly understood or implemented, but also because the system is chaotic and long term prediction is impossible on any useful level, sub-regionally or even regionally.
When you get an event like the recent UK floods the shout goes up that we will get more of the same. Two years ago the shout went up that we were going to get more droughts because of a lack of rain. Someone should be shouting that because we have just had floods there is somewhere else that didn't get that rain. When we had the drought the shout should have gone up that somewhere was getting that rain. All grasping at straws.
Apart from addressing issues that are known and economic to address, the master plan has to be wait and see and plan and adapt as justified eg if building on a flood plain elevate roads and buildings etc etc.
Brandon, a resident troll at Bishop Hill (Chandra) sometimes posts using the alternative name "Someone". Perhaps they are related? JoNova gave advanced warning.
The mild teasing of Cook is nothing compared to the message in the rest of the article 'we're refusing to debate, but you have to act now, though we take no responsibility for what you do as a result.'
@son of mulder : when there were droughts we should have been building reservoirs but instead we did nothing
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw
I think perhaps the most interesting part, is it seems to allow sceptics at the policy table, the science can sort itself out (and I think it will in time) damaging policies are what matters.
(sceptics thought of as ‘credible participants’ in the policy debate, which SkS will hate most)
“What matters is not whether the climate is changing (it is); nor whether human actions are to blame (they are, at the very least partly and, quite likely, largely); nor whether future climate change brings additional risks to human or non-human interests (it does). As climate scientist Professor Myles Allen said in evidence to the committee, even the projections of the IPCC’s more prominent critics overlap with the bottom end of the range of climate changes predicted in the IPCC’s published reports.
In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it? Scientific consensus is not much help here. Even if one takes the Cook study at face value, then how does a scientific consensus of 97.1% about a fact make policy-making any easier? As Roger Pielke Jr has often remarked in the context of US climate politics, it’s not for a lack of public consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change that climate policy implementation is difficult in the US.” – Mike Hulme
ie we are all within in the IPCC consensus range now.....
Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but if Prof Mike Hulme thinks Cook 97% is nonsense AND pointless, this will be noticed.
Mike Hulme seems to be very keen on control and governance (of climate change!). Perhaps he should have listened more closely to the wise words of Professor Richard Lindzen at the Committee meeting last week. The best policy would be to do nothing but wait and see for 50 years...
FarleyR
"@son of mulder : when there were droughts we should have been building reservoirs but instead we did nothing"
We know we have a growing population, we know we have droughts hence we need to plan justified reservoir capacity to meet what we know but not just when/because we have a drought.
I've written an extensive reply to Mike Hulme on Scottish Sceptic.
Land use; metropolitan spread, reservoirs, arable land use and then, deforestation [see Kilimanjaro] etc can affect climate, man made CO2 effects not much. The IPCC attempts to quantify natural variability and gropes in the dark - to modelling fresh air in a chaotic system and projects massive overstatement.
"Building reservoirs"
Kielder, was the last one built but it was in the North - they don't want them built in the places where they need them - ie here. Mind you, cutting down on the leaks might help a bit.
No, FarleyR, they are far cleverer than that -instead of building reservoirs they told us to build hugely more expensive desal plants! And in Australia we were dumb enough to build a bunch of them, and they got turned off almost immediately because the dams were by then full of guess what - rain! And the poor taxpayers are stuck with the bills for decades. Never underestimate the sheer rat cunning of these b@st@rds!
Reminder- Mike Hulme is giving a talk this Friday at 1:00 in Nottingham on “The public life of climate change: The first 25 years”.
(And Amelia Sharman is talking on Thursday about her sceptic blogosphere paper).
Re: Feb 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM | son of mulder
"We know we have a growing population, we know we have droughts hence we need to plan justified reservoir capacity to meet what we know but not just when/because we have a drought."
You may already have seen them but Richard North of EUReferendum did an excellent series of posts on just this subject establishing that it was actually government policy (albeit not stated!!) to NOT build reservoirs despite there being a desperate need for them.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82615
It's all about global politics now - politicians no longer represent the citizens of the UK but rather their own career prospects in pushing UN policies.
Re: Feb 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM | BoyfromTottenham
"No, FarleyR, they are far cleverer than that -instead of building reservoirs they told us to build hugely more expensive desal plants! And in Australia we were dumb enough to build a bunch of them, and they got turned off almost immediately because the dams were by then full of guess what - rain! And the poor taxpayers are stuck with the bills for decades. Never underestimate the sheer rat cunning of these b@st@rds!"
The inestimable Richard North of EUReferendum also did a series of posts on the Australian floods and yes, they too were largely down to crass political decisions....... again global politics at play!!
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=69839
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=74568
Thanks for the links Marion. Remember the phrase "Think Global Act Local", well it has now morphed into "Think Global Act Dumb"
Hulme says human actions are to blame for climate change at the least partly. I would tend to agree with this statement, except for the word "blame." IMHO it has not been proved that climate change is bad. Maybe human actions deserve <I>credit</I> for contributing to climate change.
'Think Global' = we have done the thinking for you, and here is what must be done
'Act Local' = do what we have told you to do
It is an insidious catchphrase that must especially appeal to people who wish to cripple/by-pass local and national discussions and politics.
The comments section is getting more entertaining.
Peter Gleick speaks up against the deniers, and Brad Keyes is on form, responding to Gleick in his usual style.
Then there's Dana, totally convinced as ever that he's right and those much older and wiser are wrong.
Hulme's comments are up for discussion as quote of the week at WUWT.
Paul Matthews, I love how clueless Nuccitelli is. He makes me laugh at least once every time I read something he reads. I mean he really can't figure out what makes his paper "infamous".
Carrick-
Ben Pile's response was classic!
Great stuff - Gleick sticks his head above the parapet and has it promptly shot off with large calibre ammunition!
A great article describing the abuse of science by Cook et al. Click on the 'review' link in the article to see the Calgary-based, Friends of Science.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
Mark S... "Some people have zero self-awareness."
Ironically, as we are talking of blatant narcissists
Mike Hulme? Why does anyone take this pompous, self-serving blowhard seriously?
Hulme,as well as being unable (or unwilling) to express himself and his position in plain, clear, English, is a master of hovering above the fence, listing this way and that as the wind blows.
It is worth looking at Mike Hulme's four points of why politics, not science must take centre stage. In brief they are:-
This is in addition to the economic case, that in the UK we are paying far more to mitigate each tonne of CO2 than Stern's estimated social cost of carbon of $85/tCO2 - just about the most extreme estimate available.
A third level of criticism is that the science has been a tad over-Cooked.
It really is a religion for these people. The Bishop merely uses the nickname, but true-believers actually pronounce anathema on the rest of us, especially on those who are deemed to have strayed from the fold.
Ah, Mike Hulme, the second-hand car salesman of Global Warming. The science is unconvincing - let's try the cultural approach. What colour would you like your New World Order to be?
Billy Liar - well said. All that tosh about the "morality" of technologies like GMOs and fracking. No prizes for guessing who the new moral arbiters will be.
Why, as it happens, that sort of thing is right up Hulme's academic alley. What a coincidence!
Bish,
FYI
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/hulme-tries-to-throw-all-scientists-under-a-bus-its-just-the-debate-is-over-without-lauding-the-consensus/
John Cooks paper has done its job, hence why the clowns at sks feel no need to defend it. Its now worked its way in to Mann Made Global Warming (tm) folklore and thats all politicians need.
Mailman
The offending word has been cut off.
@Feb 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM | Registered CommenterHarold
Yeah I was in a debate about that with a couple of (I think) SKS regulars about that edit, and then got a response from Mike Hulme in this exchange:
Me:
Mike Hulme:
Nice one Leopard.